EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-8/24: Action brought on 8 January 2024 — Meta Platforms Ireland v EDBP

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0008

62024TN0008

January 8, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2024/1706

(Case T-8/24)

(C/2024/1706)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, M. Braun, A. Vallery, lawyers, D. McGrath, E. Egan McGrath, SC, S. Horan, H. Godfrey, Barristers-at-Law, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, L. Joyce and D. Breatnach, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the EDPB’s ‘Urgent Binding Decision 01/2023 requested by the Norwegian SA for the ordering of final measures regarding Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Art. 66(2) GDPR (1))’ adopted on 27 October 2023, in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts; and

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that Article 66(2) of GDPR violates the rule of law, Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and, as such, is unlawful and invalid.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 66 of GDPR.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 Charter.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB considered incorrect criteria to determine whether it could adopt an urgent binding decision pursuant to Article 66(2) of GDPR.

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1706/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia